Who's Really Paying for Retail Diversity?
At Constellar, we spend a lot of time talking with founders about the realities of scaling retail, where the gap between visibility and sustainability is often underestimated.
This piece comes from Taylor Wilson, whose experience spans both sides of the retail table: from a merchant role at Sephora to supporting numerous well known beauty brands through US retail growth and expansion.
Something is happening in beauty retail that isn't being talked about loudly enough. Brands are exiting major retailers and the brands leaving aren't random. They are disproportionately women-owned, often majority self-funded, and frequently founded by Black and minority entrepreneurs. This isn't a coincidence.
A few years ago, the beauty retail landscape shifted in response to a clear cultural and consumer mandate: bring in brands that are culturally relevant, owned by people from minorities and underrepresented communities, and give them real shelf space. The objective? Expand the assortment, and give awareness and space to brands who would otherwise not be found. And retailers responded. Assortments expanded. New founders got their brands on the shelf. But the question nobody asked loudly enough was: at what cost?
I've been on both sides of this. As a merchant at one of the largest beauty retailers, and later heading up sales and strategy at powerhouse brands, I've sat in the rooms where these decisions get made - the forecasting meetings, the launch negotiations, the financial reviews. And I have thoughts.
The capital conversation is happening too late if at all
When merchants evaluate a brand for launch, long-term capital rarely leads the conversation. Retailers don't typically open with "Can this brand actually afford to be here?" As a result, door counts and sales forecasts are often entirely disconnected from a brand's real financial position. That misalignment starts on day one.
The most practical solution for founders is a staggered approach to launch. If a full brick-and-mortar rollout is too capital-intensive upfront, beginning with the retailer's dotcom and phasing door openings over time can significantly reduce initial spend while creating a more consistent cash flow. It also gives a brand time to truly understand how their customer shops before committing to the full infrastructure of in-store retail.
Getting in is just the beginning
The hidden and variable costs of operating inside a major retailer add up fast: field teams, store associate training, gifting, marketing activations, paid placements. These aren't optional extras in a competitive environment and skipping them is rarely a real choice. In store, the shelf is a brand’s sales person when the field team isn’t present, so there’s no real way to cut corners in the name of expense here either. Online, your dotcom pages are your most important sales asset.
The reality is that retail is often a capital game disguised as a visibility opportunity. And while the industry has become far more vocal about representation on shelves, it has been far less forthcoming about the financial infrastructure that’s required to sustain it.
Founders are often taught to treat retailer acceptance as the milestone. In reality, getting into retail is only the beginning. What matters is whether a brand can sustain the pace, investment, marketing and operational demands that come once the contract is signed.
I’m navigating many of these same questions myself with a brand launching later this summer, and the advice I keep coming back to is simple:
Build into brick and mortar, don't rush it. Use the first year of retail to genuinely understand your customer - how they discover you, how they convert, what makes them come back. That knowledge will make every subsequent door you open more effective.
Use the retailer as a tool, not the other way around. A full-funnel marketing strategy that consistently drives traffic to the retailer protects the relationship and your sell-through. You are not at the mercy of the shelf. Your goal is to build a brand presence that lives beyond it.
And remember: you're allowed to say no. If something feels misaligned, perhaps a door count that's too aggressive or a timeline that doesn't match your capital position it is okay to push back. This is your brand, and ultimately your strategy to play out over one, three or five years. Protecting that sometimes means slowing down.
Ultimately, growth that outpaces infrastructure usually creates fragility. The brands that last won’t necessarily be the ones that expand fastest, but the ones that understood how to scale at the right pace for their stage of business - financially, operationally, and strategically.
This piece was written by Taylor Wilson, who supports brands with US sales growth at Constellar, and edited by Catherine Collins. If you're navigating retail and want support from someone who has worked on both sides of the table, please get in touch - hello@constellar.cc
Who's Really Paying for Retail Diversity?
At Constellar, we spend a lot of time talking with founders about the realities of scaling retail, where the gap between visibility and sustainability is often underestimated.
This piece comes from Taylor Wilson, whose experience spans both sides of the retail table: from a merchant role at Sephora to supporting numerous well known beauty brands through US retail growth and expansion.
Something is happening in beauty retail that isn't being talked about loudly enough. Brands are exiting major retailers and the brands leaving aren't random. They are disproportionately women-owned, often majority self-funded, and frequently founded by Black and minority entrepreneurs. This isn't a coincidence.
A few years ago, the beauty retail landscape shifted in response to a clear cultural and consumer mandate: bring in brands that are culturally relevant, owned by people from minorities and underrepresented communities, and give them real shelf space. The objective? Expand the assortment, and give awareness and space to brands who would otherwise not be found. And retailers responded. Assortments expanded. New founders got their brands on the shelf. But the question nobody asked loudly enough was: at what cost?
I've been on both sides of this. As a merchant at one of the largest beauty retailers, and later heading up sales and strategy at powerhouse brands, I've sat in the rooms where these decisions get made - the forecasting meetings, the launch negotiations, the financial reviews. And I have thoughts.
The capital conversation is happening too late if at all
When merchants evaluate a brand for launch, long-term capital rarely leads the conversation. Retailers don't typically open with "Can this brand actually afford to be here?" As a result, door counts and sales forecasts are often entirely disconnected from a brand's real financial position. That misalignment starts on day one.
The most practical solution for founders is a staggered approach to launch. If a full brick-and-mortar rollout is too capital-intensive upfront, beginning with the retailer's dotcom and phasing door openings over time can significantly reduce initial spend while creating a more consistent cash flow. It also gives a brand time to truly understand how their customer shops before committing to the full infrastructure of in-store retail.
Getting in is just the beginning
The hidden and variable costs of operating inside a major retailer add up fast: field teams, store associate training, gifting, marketing activations, paid placements. These aren't optional extras in a competitive environment and skipping them is rarely a real choice. In store, the shelf is a brand’s sales person when the field team isn’t present, so there’s no real way to cut corners in the name of expense here either. Online, your dotcom pages are your most important sales asset.
The reality is that retail is often a capital game disguised as a visibility opportunity. And while the industry has become far more vocal about representation on shelves, it has been far less forthcoming about the financial infrastructure that’s required to sustain it.
Founders are often taught to treat retailer acceptance as the milestone. In reality, getting into retail is only the beginning. What matters is whether a brand can sustain the pace, investment, marketing and operational demands that come once the contract is signed.
I’m navigating many of these same questions myself with a brand launching later this summer, and the advice I keep coming back to is simple:
Build into brick and mortar, don't rush it. Use the first year of retail to genuinely understand your customer - how they discover you, how they convert, what makes them come back. That knowledge will make every subsequent door you open more effective.
Use the retailer as a tool, not the other way around. A full-funnel marketing strategy that consistently drives traffic to the retailer protects the relationship and your sell-through. You are not at the mercy of the shelf. Your goal is to build a brand presence that lives beyond it.
And remember: you're allowed to say no. If something feels misaligned, perhaps a door count that's too aggressive or a timeline that doesn't match your capital position it is okay to push back. This is your brand, and ultimately your strategy to play out over one, three or five years. Protecting that sometimes means slowing down.
Ultimately, growth that outpaces infrastructure usually creates fragility. The brands that last won’t necessarily be the ones that expand fastest, but the ones that understood how to scale at the right pace for their stage of business - financially, operationally, and strategically.
This piece was written by Taylor Wilson, who supports brands with US sales growth at Constellar, and edited by Catherine Collins. If you're navigating retail and want support from someone who has worked on both sides of the table, please get in touch - hello@constellar.cc
